. . . but that was the easy part

I look forward to multiple utterances and writings claiming that with respect to the elections in Iraq, "that was the easy part." I have grown used to hearing and seeing the "easy part" analysis after each milestone (the invasion, the march to Baghdad, the toppling of the Saddam regime, the capture of Saddam, the hand-over to the Iraqi government). I do not expect this milestone to be any different. Before these milestones, however, no one ever claims that it will be easy.

UPDATE: Look also for the corollary, "but now comes the hard part."

UPDATE: True to form, MSNBC/AP: With elections over, the hard part remains ("Now comes the hard part").

UPDATE: More Bangor Daily News: Now Comes the Hard Part
Venture County Star: Who Won, Who Lost in Iraqi Elections

GOP Retreat Features Talk on Blogs, Hispanic Outreach

According to an NYT article, the GOP is starting to take blogging seriously:

Senator John Thune of South Dakota introduced senators to the meaning of "blogging," explaining the basics of self-published online political commentary and arguing that it can affect public opinion.

My advice to the Republican National Committee and the 2008 Presidential campaigns: resist the temptation to make their blogs more interactive by allowing readers to post comments.

The 2004 Bush-Cheney blog was criticized for being little more than a list of events and press releases. Such criticism is fair and constructive. The complaint that the blog should have allowed readers to post comments, however, was neither.

The DNC site serves as a warning for what can happen when others are allowed to post comments to your blog. Through much of the 2004 campaign, the official DNC site and other DNC-sympathetic sites contained some of the most vitriolic, bilious and inane rantings of the year. This is precisely what would happen to the GOP blog if it were opened for posted comments. Readers who wish to share their opinions can be given the opportunity to e-mail comments to the blog rather than posting.

The GOP also discussed the 2004 campaign and how to reach various groups, including Hispanics:

In a possible sign of what to expect in 2006, Republican senators heard presentations about the strengths and weaknesses of Mr. Bush's presidential campaign and about how to reach blacks, Hispanics, Jews and blue-collar workers, groups not traditionally drawn to the Republican Party, people present said. The sessions were closed to journalists.

The presentations underscored the effectiveness of Mr. Bush's appeals to those groups on public expressions of faith, traditional values and especially the issue of marriage, including opposition to same-sex marriage, aides said.

The GOP should expect to have some success reaching Hispanics with those issues because it is becoming increasingly difficult for Hispanics to vote for candidates who do not support, and in some cases mock, their values. How long will Hispanic voters continue to vote for Democrats when Democrats tell them that observant Christians are ignorant zealots; that those who oppose same-sex marriage are bigots; and that poor children should stay in failing public schools rather than be given school choice through vouchers? Can Democrats continue to count on the Hispanic vote with those positions and with obstructionist tactics on Hispanic nominees such as Miguel Estrada and Alberto Gonzales? The 2006 mid-term elections present an excellent opportunity for the GOP to try to get the answers to these questions.

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Hews Party Line

Drudge and Roll Call are reporting that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which, despite its name, is composed entirely of Democrats in the House, has declined to endorse Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General. This has also been picked up by Knight Ridder.

Coupled with the unanimous opposition to Gonzales by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, this indicates that Democrats are willing to pursue the "Be kind to terrorists" strategy after all and take their chances in opposing the first Hispanic Attorney General. Will this stop Gonzales? No. Will it hurt Democrats in the Hispanic community? Only future elections will tell.

Republicans have already made in-roads into the Democrat's advantage in the Hispanic vote at least in part because it has become increasing unpalatable for Hispanics to vote for a party that advocates positions that run counter to their values. This may just be more evidence of the Democrats missing a pulse.

UPDATE: Other Hispanic groups are supporting Gonzalez, so there is a clear split in the Hispanic community on this nomination. This is a good sign, namely it shows that unlike other reliable Democrat-voting groups, Hispanics are showing a fair amount of independence.

Potential Starting Point for the Marginalization of the Democrat Party

From the AP:

The American military's continued presence in Iraq is fanning the flames of conflict, and signals the need for a new detailed timeline to bring the troops home, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said Thursday.

Just three days before the Iraqi people go to the polls to elect a new government, the Massachusetts Democrat said America must give Iraq back to its people rather than continue an occupation that parallels the failed politics of the Vietnam war.

. . . .

"There may well be violence as we disengage militarily from Iraq and Iraq disengages politically from us, but there will be much more violence if we continue our present dangerous and destabilizing course," said Kennedy. "It will not be easy to extricate ourselves from Iraq, but we must begin."

. . . .

Now, Kennedy said, the United States and the insurgents are both battling for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and the U.S. is losing.

It may be unremarkable that Senator Kennedy is advocating a leave-and-let-them-drown strategy, but if other Democrats get into the car with Senator Kennedy (note: yes, I know these are cheap metaphors at the expense of Senator Kennedy), then this will be a significant moment for the Democrats. It may mark the beginning of a Democrat party that takes an until-now unimaginable position: Let's go home and let the terrorists win this one. If this becomes a widespread Democrat position, this may mark the start of the long-term marginalization of the Democrat party.

To be fair to Senator Kennedy, his solution involves having the U.S. withdraw and then having the United Nations come in to help the Iraqi government "take shape and draft a constitution." This seems well reasoned, except that a U.S. withdrawal would likely be followed not by a constitutional democracy, but by a tyrannical regime run by Saddam loyalist and terrorists. Would the U.N. help that government "take shape and draft a constitution"? Would it be a proud moment for Senator Kennedy and the Democrat party when the current Iraqi government is executed (constitutionally, of course) by the new, U.N.-supported Iraqi government?

There may be a more cynical reason for supporting the Kennedy Solution: the 2006 mid-term elections. Perhaps having the U.S. leave Iraq in defeat, as Senator Kennedy suggests, would hurt Republican candidates and help Democrats in the mid-term elections. The converse, however, may also apply. If the U.S. is succeeding in Iraq on Election Day 2006, advocates of the Kennedy Solution will have a difficult time explaining their support for a U.S. surrender.

Bad Math or Bad Use of Math?

Is the AP just bad at math? Here is a curious statement from the AP's article on Dr. Rice's confirmation as Secretary of State (second paragraph):

The tally, though one-sided at 85-13, was still the largest "no" vote against any secretary of state nominee since 1825.

This leaves a clear impression: this is the most opposition received by a nominee for Secretary of State in 180 years. That is, of course, if all things were equal. Paragraph 13 of the article, without much fanfare, provides the context:

Through history, no nominee for secretary of state has been defeated in the Senate. Many have had little or no opposition and were confirmed without recorded votes. Only one, Henry Clay in 1825, received more recorded no votes than Rice, according to the Senate Historian's office. Clay was confirmed by a vote of 27-14 (emphasis added).

Dr. Rice received 13 "no" votes (13% of the voting Senators) and Clay received 14 "no" votes (34% of the voting Senators), but the AP saw these two numbers as comparable without any regard to the total number of senators at the time of these votes. To match Clay's percentage of "no" votes, Dr. Rice would need 34 "no" votes in today's Senate. The AP's second-paragraph assertion is equivalent to asserting that John Kerry received more electoral college votes than George Washington (thereby making Kerry more popular than Washington). Presumably, the AP would realize that there were less people and electoral college votes in the country during Washington's time than now.

This means the AP either (a) purposely compared two not-so-comparable "no" votes or (b) purposely sought to make a point and ignored a fairly obvious mathematical distinction between the numbers. Let the readers decide.

Michael Moore Apparently Has Nuanced Position on Guns

Portly, leftist propagandist Michael Moore has argued in public and in his "Bowling for Columbine" documentary that guns are too easily obtained in America and that we need stricter gun control legislation.

Well, it appears that this position does not apply with regards to his armed bodyguard. Fox News is reporting that "Filmmaker [sic] Michael Moore's bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night."

Despite Moore's position on gun control, he apparently has no problem with having his bodyguard possess and carry a gun. Of course, most Americans cannot afford armed bodyguards, so they have to continue to carry their own guns.

Gonzales Vote Delayed

Democrats have decided to delay a vote on Alberto Gonzales's nomination. They are also holding up Rice's nomination. Two other administration nominees, however, are expected to be voted on and confirmed tomorrow.

Obviously, Democrats believe they have enough political capital to play these types of political games with the what will be the first Hispanic Attorney General and the first female black Secretary of State. Note, by the way, that if Republicans tried this they would wake up to a heaping serving of editorials and network news stories implying racism or "insensitivity."

Sound Politics

There are excellent posts on Sound Politics today, including a link to Sharkanky's op-ed article in today's Seattle Times.

Ruben Navarrette on Gonzales Hearings

Columnist Ruben Navarrette has a good take on the Gonzales hearings and the left's so-far feeble and futile attempt to derail him.

On the other side, and on the same page, the Washington Post runs a column from Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton titled "Questions for Gonzales . . ." The column is an example of the nuanced "be kind to terrorists" tact that Democrats are attempting to use, although in this article there is no nuance. There are, however, two noteworthy features about the article.

First, the article is written not by a member of the Senate, which has to vote on confirming Mr. Gonzales, but by a delegate member of the House. Additionally, Delegate Holmes Norton, as the representative from the District of Columbia, is in the safest of all districts. This may indicate a recognition by Democrats that a strident anti-Gonzales approach comes with more political dangers than advantages.

Secondly, despite the article's title, there is not a single question posed to Mr. Gonzales -- not one (in fact, there is not even a single question mark in the entire article). In all fairness to Delegate Holmes Norton, article titles are not created by the authors, but rather by the publication's headline writers. Nonetheless, I wonder why the Washington Post chose to use a clearly inaccurate headline for this op-ed. Maybe a more accurate headline would have once again exposed the Democrats on this issue. Or maybe, as Mr. Navarrette opined, Democrats got the message "offered up on behalf of a large portion of the Latino community: 'Hurt him, and we'll hurt you.'"

Is WMD Still an Issue?

Instapundit has a good post on the shutdown of the Iraq survey group, and I would add one more point.

The persons who are jumping up and down in glee because no WMD were found in Iraq (thereby, in their opinions, vindicating their position) conveniently omit one inconvenient bit of information. Those same people argued that Iraq should not be invaded and Saddam should not be removed even if Iraq possessed WMD. Thus, the full argument is that the U.S should not have invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam regardless of whether it had WMD.

Want to test this? Ask any anti-warn type or Bush-hater whether he or she would support the war or Bush if WMD were found in Iraq tomorrow.

Once Again, America Distinguishes Itself

This Reuters dispatch, titled "Key Figure in Iraq Prisoner Abuse Found Guilty," once again shows what distinguishes America from most of the rest of the world. Can anyone imagine a headline reading "Key Figure in Videotaped Iraq Beheadings Found Guilty"? Can anyone imagine terrorists, Saddam loyalists or their respective sympathizers conducting trials of those responsible for the vicious beheadings of Westerners and Arabs working with the coalition? How many Viet Cong soldiers faced such trials for their actions at the infamous Hanoi Hilton and other POW camps?

Yet, America is vilified for the actions of a few, while the reaction by the U.S. military, namely an investigation, trial, conviction, and imminent punishment, are ignored. Very few countries or governments would undertake this process. The terrorists, Saddam loyalist and their respective sympathizers certainly would not.

AP: Some Now Question Cost of Inauguration

This type of story is my favorite, mainly because of its self-righteousness, but mostly because it descends into self-parody.

The AP has a story in which it reports on "questions" regarding the propriety of holding an expensive inauguration at this particular time. Among the points made by the AP are comparisons of the cost of items that could be purchased with the inauguration funds (presumably the $40 million in private donations), FDR's decision not to hold a lavish a inauguration in 1945 and the views of Mark Cuban, owner of the NAB Mavericks.

The article wonders what could "that kind of money" buy? It then lists:

- 200 armored humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.
- Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children
in regions devastated by the tsunami.
- A down payment on the nation's deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year.
- Two years' salary for the Mets' new center fielder Carlos Beltran, or all of pitcher Randy Johnson's contract extension with the New York Yankees.

Considering that $40 million of these funds are from private donations, perhaps the AP could tell us how these private donors would go about purchasing armored humvees for the armed forces or reduce the deficit. With regard to the vaccinations and the newest signing by the Yankees and Mets, is anyone at the AP willing to write an article arguing that perhaps the Yankees and Mets could have used the salaries to be paid to Beltran and Johnson to buy vaccines for tsunami victims instead? Probably not, because each team would point out its large contributions to tsunami relief funds and other charities.

The AP then moves to the FDR example:

New York Rep. Anthony wiener, a Democrat, suggested inaugural parties should be scaled back, citing as a precedent Roosevelt inauguration during World War II.

"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," according to a letter from Wiener and Rep. Jim McDermott.

Missing from this "precedent" are the facts that (1) FDR was seriously ill by January 1945 and would certainly have had reason to want a more low-key inauguration, which was probably the reason for the "short speech"; (2) the 1945 inauguration was his FOURTH, which, after 112 years in office, certainly would have been a "been there, done that three times" event; and (3) despite a war in Europe and Japanese aggression in Asia at the time of the 1941 inauguration, FDR did not tone down the 1941 inauguration.

Completing its closing argument, the AP resorts to citing Mark Cuban:

Billionaire Mark Cuban, owner of the National Basketball Association's Dallas Mavericks, voted for Bush — twice. Cuban knows a thing or two about big spending, once starring in ABC's reality TV show, "The Benefactor," in which 16 contenders tried to pass his test for success and win $1 million.

Cuban questioned spending all that money on the inaugural.

"As a country, we face huge deficits. We face a declining economy. We have service people dying. We face responsibilities to help those suffering from the ... devastation of the tsunami's," he wrote on his blog, a Web journal.

Cuban challenged Bush to set an example: "Start by canceling your inauguration parties and festivities."

This is where the argument collapses for good. Mark Cuban, the host of a reality show in which he gave away $1 million dollars to contestants based on their performance in various challenges, including a game of "H-O-R-S-E," lectures the president, without a trace of irony, on the serious issues facing the country. Here is how Mr. Cuban approached the serious issue of giving away $1 million dollars: "Why has he agreed to give away such a large sum of money? Because he can't wait to see how America's applicants will prove to him that they deserve it!"

Quite an example, indeed. With so many people always in need, could there have been a better use for "The Benefactor's" $1 million? Sure, but maybe the recipients would have to "prove to him that they deserve it!"

The bottom line is that every dollar spent could always be spent on something better or more worthwhile, depending on one's point of view. If the argument advanced in the AP article is to be accepted, then we should be prepared to cancel all inaugurals, all ceremonial events and, in fact, all non-important spending from now on because there will always be better ways of spending money in the view of many. Somehow, I do not expect this approach to take hold.

Recall Reed? Not so fast . . .

Lots of talk on Sound Politics and in the news about a petition to recall Sam Reed. Everyone considering this path should realize this is not an easy task in Washington. Contrary to a comment on the Sound Politics blog ("Officials can only be recalled after they've been found guilty in court of 'malfeasance or misfeasance'"), recalls are not restricted to post-conviction malfeasance or misfeasance, but they still require court review and approval of the recall petition.

Working on some technical issues . . . and other items

The blog has been dormant while I have been working on some technical issues. El Blogero should be back up and posting by Wednesday of this week. In the meantime, kudos to El Blogerito for his correct prediction regarding the Seahawks.

In celebration of the gubernatorial inauguration on Wednesday, please pay a visit to RevoteWA. Thanks to the great work of some devoted bloggers (most notably SoundPolitics and Shark Blog) and talk-radio (the always-reliable duo of Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson), the fun is just beginning in this state. For those looking for a California-style recall, however, do not count on it (this op-ed article explains why). The article concludes, with some foresight:

Although the Legislature and the courts in Washington have erected safeguards to protect against abuses of the recall process, it is not inconceivable that one day policy disagreements will develop into the recall of a governor in this state. All that would be needed is the combustible combination of an unpopular governor, controversial policy decisions, tough economic times and an opening such as an error in judgment on a nondiscretionary matter.

Washington may not have to worry about a California-style recall drive today, but the very same empowerment that fuels the initiative and referendum process may one day fuel a recall drive or, more ironically, an initiative easing the legislative limitations and safeguards on recall in Washington. That day may be closer than we think.

Although that "combustible combination" may indeed be imminent, a recall under current law would make Lt. Governor Brad Owen the new governor. For now, a revote appears to be a sound strategy and sound politics.

The Mexican Foreign Ministry's Newest "Comic Book"

I am hoping this story turns out to be a hoax, but The Arizona Republic is reporting that the Mexican Foreign Ministry has published and is distributing a "colorful new comic book" providing advice to migrants on how to enter the U.S.

Dramatic drawings show undocumented immigrants wading into a river, running from the U.S. Border Patrol and crouching near a hole in a border fence. On other pages, they hike through a desert with rock formations reminiscent of Arizona and are caught by a stern-faced Border Patrol agent.

. . . .

The book is being distributed as a free supplement to El Libro Vaquero, a popular cowboy comic book, in five Mexican states that send many migrants to the United States: Zacatecas, Michoacán, Puebla, Oaxaca and Jalisco. The government plans to print 1.5 million copies.

The book comes with a yellow disclaimer saying it does not promote undocumented immigration, and it repeatedly warns against crossing illegally. But it gives no information about the steps for seeking a U.S. visa [emphasis added].

Despite the disclaimer, this book, which carries the innocuous title, "The Guide for the Mexican Migrant," appears to be a guide to illegal border crossings. Undoubtedly, it would be laudable if the Mexican government provided assistance to migrants on the visa application process and advice on adjusting to the U.S. once here. A comic book that provides advice such as, "Thick clothing increases your weight when wet, and this makes it difficult to swim or float," however, is not worthy of a government that is serious about reforming its political and economic system and eliminating incentives for its citizens to enter a neighboring country illegally.

As far as I know, the U.S. government has no plans to publish a French and English language comic book advising distraught Kerry voters on how to migrate to Canada illegally.

Democrats Plan to Rough-up, but not Stop Gonzales?

An article in Monday's NYT appears to lay out the left's plan for the Gonzales nomination. According to the author:

Even some of Mr. Gonzales's detractors say they do not expect to prevent him from becoming the nation's 80th attorney general, as well as the first Hispanic holder of the office. Instead, they say, they hope to lay down a record that will make it difficult for him to be confirmed to the Supreme
Court.

The article also has this nugget:

His critics, both on the committee and among witnesses testifying after Mr. Gonzales's own appearance on Thursday, will portray him as a lawyer who made colossal misjudgments in supervising the administration's legal strategy for dealing with Al Qaeda and other terrorist threats.

Are Democrats really willing to bash the first Hispanic nominee for Attorney General on behalf of mistreated Al Qaeda and other terrorists? Well, maybe. Note that there are few Democrat officeholders or policymakers quoted in this article as proponents of this strategy. The only such Democrats mentioned in the article are Senator Schumer, who predicts that Gonzalez will be confirmed with "broad Democratic support," and Senator Leahy, who has reportedly complained about the administration's unwillingness to disclose the extent of Gonzales's participation in the White House's terror memoranda. The rest of the article is based, apparently, on a letter to be released on Monday by Adm. John D. Hutson and "several military legal experts."

We will have to see if Democrats are willing to sign on to a "Be kind to terrorists" tact in an admittedly futile attempt to derail the first Hispanic Attorney General. My guess is that this strategy will have its most fervent support on the editorial pages of the NYT and the fax machines of some left-wing groups. Democrats, I assume, still have enough political judgment to know that this strategy will appeal to their base on the left and the press, but not to majority of Americans.

Drudge is also reporting that Democrats are considering using Abu Ghraib abuse footage at the Gonzales nomination hearings. This will require a lot of nuance, even for Democrats. It will be difficult to avoid the image of a party that is willing to score political points by taking the side of terrorists (even abused terrorist).

Whitman is the New Paul O'Neill

Drudge is reporting on Christine Todd Whitman's new Bush-bashing book. The book is set for release on January 27th, so this ought to provide at least two weeks of morning talk show and evening news coverage for the networks. Look for a 60 Minutes profile just before the inauguration.

The basic premise of the book seems to be that the GOP has moved too far to the right and has ignored moderates in the party. This seems like a tough argument to sustain when the party's stars include Rudy Giuliani and Governor Schwarzenegger, but I expect the mainstream media to provide her with plenty of cover while making this argument. The editorials will read, in essence, "Even Whitman, who is a loyal Republican, recognizes the extreme positions of the GOP." The GOP will hopefully ignore this and concentrate on the Inauguration and the second term agenda.

Good blogs that should be checked regularly

I am new to this whole blogging arena, but I have been reading many other blogs for some time. In the future, I will add a Blog Roll to this site, but for now, I have listed few that I check regularly:

Hispanic Pundit
Powerline
Instapundit
HughHewitt
RealClearPolitics

Other sites that I check regularly:

Drudge Report (the one that started a revolution in journalism and the Internet)
OpinionJournal (particularly the daily "Best of the Web" blog)
National Review Online (particularly the "Kerry Spot" blog, which should soon be renamed)
Weekly Standard

2005 Predictions, Part III

Here are Mrs. Blogero's predictions:

Politics: Fidel Castro dies and Cuba begins its return to capitalism and its introduction to democracy. John Kerry resigns his Senate seat.

Pop Culture: Martha Stewart comes back and is bigger and more successful than ever.

Wild Card: Unfortunately, another terrorist attack occurs on U.S. soil (Mrs. Blogero is hoping to be wrong on this one).

2005 Predictions, Part II

Here are El Blogerito's (my almost-thirteen-year-old son's) predictions (all sports related):

• Eagles win Super Bowl, with Donovan McNabb as Super Bowl MVP (unless T.O. comes back and "gives 110%"). Seahawks lose in the first round of playoffs.
• Phoenix Suns vs. Miami Heat in the NBA Finals, with the Heat as champions and Shaq as Finals MVP. Sonics get to semifinals but lose.
• Matt Morris is replaced as the ace of the Cardinals pitching staff by Mark Mulder. Barry Bonds wins National League MVP award (no chance for anyone else). Jason Giambi has a difficult time earning the respect of New York fans, but has a good season nonetheless.

2005 Predictions, Part I

Everyone else begins the year with predictions, so why not El Blogero? I also solicited predictions from Mrs. Blogero and El Blogerito, my almost-thirteen-year-old son, and those predictions will follow in later posts. The predictions are limited to politics, sports, pop culture and a wild card.

Here are mine:

Politics: Christine Gregoire sets news records for lowest job approval and popularity for any governor in Washington State history. Tax reform and Social Security reform become the big, contentious political issues of the year, each of which brings good news to the stock market. At least two Supreme Court Justices (Rehnquist and O'Connor) retire at the end of the session, and Scalia is elevated to Chief Justice. The nomination fight for O'Connor's replacement is as ugly and divisive as the Bork nomination, but the President's nominee gets confirmed. New York gets a Democrat mayor and New Jersey and Virginia get Republican governors. The left blames global warming, the U.S. and/or President Bush for every bad event in the world (okay, that one was easy). The stock market goes up on talk of tax reform and Social Security reform; Democrats become depressed.

Sports: Same prediction as always--Yankees win the World Series. Randy Johnson wins the American League Cy Young award and is a contender for MVP. Nothing else matters.

Pop Culture: The Passion of the Christ does not receive any major Oscar nominations and the winner for Best Picture at the Oscar is . . . who cares? (quick: what was the Best Picture winner in 2004?) Michael Jackson is acquitted, but pays millions to several accusers nonetheless. It will be a good year at the movies with Star Wars Episode III (big hit), War of the Worlds (big disappointment) and The Adventures of Shark Boy & Lava Girl (sleeper hit). The U2 tour becomes the hot ticket for the year. CBS finally releases its report on Memogate and Dan Rather is replaced by two co-anchors; no one notices either of these events. Reality TV's rise will be slowed by a scandal or a show-related fatality.

Wild Card: Usama bin Laden is apprehended; Democrats become even more depressed.